Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[frjohnmorris]

Yes, it does happen on occasion, albeit that it’s rare and totally unofficial.

Again, while it’s rare and unofficial, it apparently also happens on occasion between the EO and EC. I personally know of at least one EC priest who has done so. (He was even invited to concelebrate by an an EO bishop.) Although I’ve no personal knowledge of it, I’ve also heard that this happens between Melkites and AOC.

There is no concelebration between Orthodox and non-Orthodox which includes concelbration between the Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkites. A few years ago the Melikites unilaterally declared themselves in Communion with the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch while remaining in Communion with Rome. The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Patriarchate held an emergency meeting and declared that Communion between the Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkites could only take place as a part of an agreement between Rome and the rest of the Orthodox Church. I understand that the reaction in Rome was identical to the response of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

There is no concelebration between Orthodox and non-Orthodox which includes concelbration between the Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkites. A few years ago the Melikites unilaterally declared themselves in Communion with the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch while remaining in Communion with Rome. The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Patriarchate held an emergency meeting and declared that Communion between the Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkites could only take place as a part of an agreement between Rome and the rest of the Orthodox Church. I understand that the reaction in Rome was identical to the response of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Archpriest John W. Morris

In all fairness, the Melkites did not declare themselves to be in communion with Orthodoxy and Rome simultaneously. They stated that they hold the same Faith as Orthodoxy, while being in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the standard of the first millennium before the separation. They then went on to declare that a certain “communio in sacris” was possible because of the fact that the hold the same Faith as the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. That’s not quite the same as declaring a simultaneous communion between them, Orthodoxy, and Rome.

 

[frjohnmorris]

In all fairness, the Melkites did not declare themselves to be in communion with Orthodoxy and Rome simultaneously. They stated that they hold the same Faith as Orthodoxy, while being in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the standard of the first millennium before the separation. They then went on to declare that a certain “communio in sacris” was possible because of the fact that the hold the same Faith as the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. That’s not quite the same as declaring a simultaneous communion between them, Orthodoxy, and Rome.

I do not see the difference. What else does “communio in sacris” mean but being in Communion. I once attend a Melkite Liturgy on a Sunday because I could not attend an Orthodox Liturgy. The Priest was offended because I would not concelebrate with him or receive Communion. If the Melkites would concelbrate with an Orthodox Priest or give Communion to an Orthodox Christian, especially an Orthodox Priest, they are according to our theology in Communion with the Orthodox Church.
Claiming to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome is the aspect of Eastern Catholicism that most offends Orthodox. If you are in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you accept the same doctrines as Rome including those proclaimed by the First Vatican Council. There are real differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, especially over the authority of the papacy and the decrees of the First Vatican Council. Therefore to Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics cannot claim to be Orthodox if they are in Communion with Rome instead of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
If the Melkites remain in Communion with Rome reconciliation between them and the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch must be part of a larger reconciliation between the entire Eastern Orthodox Church and Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

I once attend a Melkite Liturgy on a Sunday because I could not attend an Orthodox Liturgy. The Priest was offended because I would not concelebrate with him or receive Communion.

In my opinion, the priest was wrong to be offended by that. (I actually feel like that should go without saying, but we Melkites are a pretty motley crew.)

 

[Peter_J]

Therefore to Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics cannot claim to be Orthodox if they are in Communion with Rome instead of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

So noted.

Of course, conversely, there are tons of Catholics who say that you guys cannot call yourselves “Catholic”.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I notice several quotes from the Balamand Statement. You should know that the Balamand Statement was never accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was also rejected by some Eastern Catholic Churches. As I remember the Romanian Catholics were particularly strong in their rejection of the Balamand Statement. In my opinion the Balamand Statement was going too far too fast.

 

[Christianity]

I’ve learned quite a bit from reading the various posts.

 

[ronyodish]

You should know that the Balamand Statement was never accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. Morris,

What do you think about those representatives of Eastern Orthodox Churches that did sign the Balamand Agreement?

According to this site:

“The Balamand Agreement was signed by representatives of the following Orthodox churches: the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Church of Russia, the Church of Romania, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Poland, the Church of Albania, and the Church of Finland.”

God bless,

Rony

 

[Peter_J]

It was also rejected by some Eastern Catholic Churches. As I remember the Romanian Catholics were particularly strong in their rejection of the Balamand Statement. In my opinion the Balamand Statement was going too far too fast.

Well, I’m sure there are many Catholics - Eastern *and *Western – who think we should still be proselytizing the Orthodox. To me that just confirms the need for the Balamand Statement.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Balamand Statement was a committee report. In ecumenical dialogue, the dialogues produce reports on various issues. However, in order for it to have authority, it would have to be accepted by the autocephalous Church of Orthodox, which have not ratified it. I am not sure whether or not Rome has ratified the Balamand Statement.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[ronyodish]

The Balamand Statement was a committee report. In ecumenical dialogue, the dialogues produce reports on various issues. However, in order for it to have authority, it would have to be accepted by the autocephalous Church of Orthodox, which have not ratified it. I am not sure whether or not Rome has ratified the Balamand Statement.

Fr. Morris,

According to the same link, it says that “In a joint communiqué, signed on June 29, 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew expressed their acceptance of the Balamand principles.”

Does the Ecumenical Patriarch’s acceptance of the Balamand principles have any significance in Eastern Orthodoxy? Or is it mostly an irrelevant gesture that holds no authority whatsoever?

God bless,

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. Morris,

According to the same link, it says that “In a joint communiqué, signed on June 29, 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew expressed their acceptance of the Balamand principles.”

Does the Ecumenical Patriarch’s acceptance of the Balamand principles have any significance in Eastern Orthodoxy? Or is it mostly an irrelevant gesture that holds no authority whatsoever?

God bless,

Rony

The Ecumenical Patriarch does not have the authority to speak for the whole Orthodox Church. In order for the Balamand Statement to be considered binding, it would have to have been accepted by every other autocephalous that is self-governing Orthodox Church. To my knowledge it has not been accepted by most Orthodox Churches. The Monks of Mt. Athos and several leading Greek theologians have rejected it. Even some Eastern Catholics have rejected it. The leader of the Romanian Catholics strongly rejected the Balamand Statement.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

The Ecumenical Patriarch does not have the authority to speak for the whole Orthodox Church. In order for the Balamand Statement to be considered binding, it would have to have been accepted by every other autocephalous that is self-governing Orthodox Church. To my knowledge it has not been accepted by most Orthodox Churches. The Monks of Mt. Athos and several leading Greek theologians have rejected it. Even some Eastern Catholics have rejected it. The leader of the Romanian Catholics strongly rejected the Balamand Statement.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Bishop Hilarion makes it clear that the Russian Patriarchate considers the very continued existence of the ECCs within Moscow’s claimed traditional area of patrimony as proselytizing banned by Balamand. The implication is that Moscow considers it binding, if their head proselyte is claiming that Rome needs to disband the ECCs to comply with it.

 

[Peter_J]

Bishop Hilarion makes it clear that the Russian Patriarchate considers the very continued existence of the ECCs within Moscow’s claimed traditional area of patrimony as proselytizing banned by Balamand. The implication is that Moscow considers it binding, if their head proselyte is claiming that Rome needs to disband the ECCs to comply with it.

Even if he did say that the very continued existence of the ECCs within Moscow’s claimed traditional area of patrimony is proselytizing banned by Balamand (although I don’t recall seeing that statement) it doesn’t necessarily follow that he considers Balamand binding. That would depend on what else he said.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Bishop Hilarion makes it clear that the Russian Patriarchate considers the very continued existence of the ECCs within Moscow’s claimed traditional area of patrimony as proselytizing banned by Balamand. The implication is that Moscow considers it binding, if their head proselyte is claiming that Rome needs to disband the ECCs to comply with it.

I am just telling you the truth the Balamand Statement has not been accepted by Orthodoxy. Even the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued a statement telling people not to make too much of it. Even if had been accepted, it did not resolve the problems between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox or bring about reunion between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[EastWest]

I notice several quotes from the Balamand Statement. You should know that the Balamand Statement was never accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was also rejected by some Eastern Catholic Churches. As I remember the Romanian Catholics were particularly strong in their rejection of the Balamand Statement. In my opinion the Balamand Statement was going too far too fast.

It would seem to me that unity between the Roman Catholic Church & the Eastern Orthodox Church(s)/Oriental Church(s) is even more difficult to accomplish because the Orthodox Church(s)/Oriental Church(s) don’t have “one” person that speaks for all of them as it is in the RCC. Perhaps unity could be accomplished much quicker if, say for example, the EP could speak for all the Eastern Orthodox Church(s)/Oriental Church(s).

Perhaps somebody could give me some thoughts about that.

Thank You

 

[Peter_J]

It would seem to me that unity between the Roman Catholic Church & the Eastern Orthodox Church(s)/Oriental Church(s) is even more difficult to accomplish because the Orthodox Church(s)/Oriental Church(s) don’t have “one” person that speaks for all of them as it is in the RCC. Perhaps unity could be accomplished much quicker if, say for example, the EP could speak for all the Eastern Orthodox Church(s)/Oriental Church(s).

Perhaps somebody could give me some thoughts about that.

Thank You

The idea that one person speaks for the Roman Catholic Church, while arguably true (?), isn’t something that I would encourage Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, or anyone else to emulate.

(I realize I may cheese-off some of my fellow Catholics, especially the Latin ones, by saying this. )

 

[frjohnmorris]

It would seem to me that unity between the Roman Catholic Church & the Eastern Orthodox Church(s)/Oriental Church(s) is even more difficult to accomplish because the Orthodox Church(s)/Oriental Church(s) don’t have “one” person that speaks for all of them as it is in the RCC. Perhaps unity could be accomplished much quicker if, say for example, the EP could speak for all the Eastern Orthodox Church(s)/Oriental Church(s).

Perhaps somebody could give me some thoughts about that.

Thank You

I am certain that the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy would be unwilling to give such authority to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The only way that union could be achieved would be through a Pan-Orthodox Council representing the autocephalous Churches of both the Eastern and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. All of our delegations to all ecumenical dialogues have representatives from most of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches, because no one person or Patriarch can speak for the whole Eastern Orthodox Church. If full agreement were reached between during the International Orthodox Catholic Dialogue, the agreement would have to be accepted by the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy either through a Pan-Orthodox Council, or submitting the agreement to the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Churches for consideration.
(Oriental Orthodox please note that I am trying not to forget to refer to my Church as Eastern Orthodox out of sensitivity for your feelings. )

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[EastWest]

The idea that one person speaks for the Roman Catholic Church, while arguably true (?), isn’t something that I would encourage Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, or anyone else to emulate.

(I realize I may cheese-off some of my fellow Catholics, especially the Latin ones, by saying this. )

“Let there be one fold and one shepherd”. I feel that because the Churches that you mentioned don’t have “one person” to speak for them is exactly why their is no unity; not even amongst themselves.

 

[EastWest]

I am certain that the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy would be unwilling to give such authority to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The only way that union could be achieved would be through a Pan-Orthodox Council representing the autocephalous Churches of both the Eastern and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. All of our delegations to all ecumenical dialogues have representatives from most of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches, because no one person or Patriarch can speak for the whole Eastern Orthodox Church. If full agreement were reached between during the International Orthodox Catholic Dialogue, the agreement would have to be accepted by the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy either through a Pan-Orthodox Council, or submitting the agreement to the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Churches for consideration.
(Oriental Orthodox please note that I am trying not to forget to refer to my Church as Eastern Orthodox out of sensitivity for your feelings. )

Archpriest John W. Morris

From what I gather there are somewhere around 15 or so autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches; and some of them don’t even recognize each other (as in Ukraine, for example). Let’s say, theoretically, a Pan-Orthodox Council is convened; by the 15. A vote is taken on a particular matter and 14 agree and 1 does not. Would the matter, in question, pass or fail. I guess I’m asking does it have to be unanimous or just a majority.

(Please excuse how I may ask a question or make a comment, my knowledge in all this is somewhat limited).

Thank You